Kilbride may be around 60 - not that old. He has high positions at Wellington Management (WM) - Partner, Managing Director (MD), portfolio manager. Vanguard has setup a smaller, similar and more concentrated fund for him - VADGX, AUM $318.1 million, ER 0.45%, only 28 holdings (vs 41 for VDIGX), inception 11/9/21. It's advisor-only fund and Schwab shows as NA and it isn't part of Fido NTF (so, no competition with VDIGX). It seems to me that Kilbride will be around Wellington Management handling VADGX, helping Fisher, and may be other even higher things at WM. It doesn't look like he is moving into a retirement community.

My more depressing problem is that I have to take an RMD sometime this year out of a retirement account with no gains or even breakeven recovery and almost certainly no prospects for same.

I have been scheduling automatic RMD withdrawals in December. Now I am wondering if it might be better to just take them in early January so they might have a good chance of mirroring the value at the end of the year before.
On the other hand, I imagine you can't win timing this either.

My BSV, BND, STIP, VGIT etc. are all down so much I am holding, but I sure do get bummed every time my eyes glance past them looking to see how VONG or QQQ has been.
My more depressing problem is that I have to take an RMD sometime this year out of a retirement account with no gains or even breakeven recovery and almost certainly no prospects for same.

MSF - I really appreciate the effort you put into this analysis! I'm 75, widowed, good health (so far), earning $60K (after 401-K contribution) from working part-time (which I plan to continue). Most of my income is from investments, pension, and SS. True retirement would probably drop me into the 32% federal tax bracket. Thanks for your insight!

There are too many variables and possibilities for me to write up a complete description let alone an analysis right now. Difference in tax rates post-retirement, number of years until retirement (at which point you should switch to IRA since the 401(k) then offers no more deferral of RMDs), number of anticipated years of life (not IRS tables), type of beneficiary (spouse or other), expected rate of return (and variability of returns).
Broad picture - the more your tax rates drop in retirement the better off you are in keeping the money in the 401(k), since that will avoid RMDs until they're taxed at the lower rates. That tax savings can more than compensate for the extra fees in the meantime.
If there's no change in rates, the picture changes. Each year you pay $8K in taxes using the IRA, meaning you have $8K less earning returns. Keep the $500K in the 401(k) and you have $4800 less due to fees that can earn returns. So you've got about $3.2K more with the 401(k) sitting there earning returns.
But while the $4800 loss to fees in the 401(k) is permanent, the loss of an extra $8K in taxes with the IRA is temporary. Keeping the money in the 401(k), sooner or later, you'd still withdraw the $20K, post-retirement, and pay the $8K in taxes then.
I don't have the time right now to delve more deeply into this. Gut feeling is that a sizeable post-retirement reduction in tax rates would justify keeping the money in the 401(k). Otherwise, moving the money to the IRA may come out better.

There are a variety of stable-value (SV) funds. I don't see any connection to ETNs.
The SVs from insurance companies may be supported directly by their general accounts, or they may be portfolios of bonds at 3rd parties with an insurance wrapper.
The SVs from fund firms may just be pools of GICs, BICs and short-term Treasuries/agencies. I have written to some and asked how they will cover losses if there were any, and their answer was that they are just very careful and conservative. But no explicit guarantees from any insurance company or from the firm to step in case of trouble.
The SVs are available within the workplace retirement plans only where clauses to prevent runs, etc, can be implemented. For example, they may be frozen during company-wide restructurings; many don't allow moving money into competing options directly (but only after "equity-wash"); they may also not pay in full for employees who are let go for causes, etc. This is why they aren't offered in IRAs as there is no mechanism there for such restrictions.

@sma3. People love to talk about California being expensive but our property tax just went up 1.9% year over year. Wasn’t planning on buying a car ever again but our perfect retirement car recently was totaled in an accident. Shit happens.

Damn. That sucks. Sorry to hear, and I do hope there were no injuries. Will you let us know?
Here's a weird one: I loved our old Jeep Patriot. White. Then we had a fire under the hood. The firemen found green boughs in there. THAT'S what ignited. Some damn animal made a NEST in there. I was less happy with the replacement we bought: a Jeep Cherokee. I think it was the first year the company resurrected that brand. With the crazy looking headlights.

@sma3. People love to talk about California being expensive but our property tax just went up 1.9% year over year. Wasn’t planning on buying a car ever again but our perfect retirement car recently was totaled in an accident. Shit happens.

Introductory question: if it were economically better to roll half the 401(k) into an IRA, wouldn't the benefit be even greater if you rolled the whole 401(k) into an IRA?
It's pretty clear that if your tax rates (or those of your beneficiaries) are lower in retirement, you're better off keeping the money in your 401(k). That's assuming you would use the same investment, the only difference being an extra 5 basis points in expenses.
Say you continue employment for another decade. (After retirement, you'd have RMDs in the 401(k) so there would be little reason to keep the money in that higher cost vehicle as opposed to a lower cost IRA).
So your investment cost for not moving the money would be about 10 x 5 basis point = 1/2%. (This ignores the minuscule compounding effect of 5 basis points.) That is petty in comparison with the reduction in taxes (if any) post-retirement.
OTOH, even if there is no reduction in taxes, by moving $500K to the IRA, you'd lose the (investment) use of the taxes owed on $20K/year. That is, you lose the tax deferral value of keeping the RMD amount tax-sheltered.
At 40% (your current tax rate), that's $8K in taxes paid early that you won't have to invest. And you lose the use of an additional $8K each year for however long you still work and could defer RMDs with your 401(k).
Let's say that you get 5% return on your S&P 500 investment. If you leave the $500K in the 401(k), then each year, for so long as you work, you'll have an additional $8K earning 5% ($400) that you wouldn't have had by using the IRA. That's $400 extra the first year, $800 extra the second year, etc. The cost to you for those earnings is 5 basis points on $500K/year or $250/year.
Of course you'll owe taxes on those extra earnings once you withdraw them from your retirement plan. So the gain isn't quite this large, but it's still clearly positive. Even if your taxes don't go down in retirement.
The choice seems obvious. Saving 5 basis points is not worth the loss of use of tax money, let alone potential lower tax rates if distributions are deferred until (actual) retirement.
It might be worth the additional flexibility, but that's a whole 'nother story.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1638872/000139834423006380/fp0082174-7_497.htm
497 1 fp0082174-7_497.htm
CLOUGH FUNDS TRUST
Supplement dated March 20, 2023
to the Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information, each dated
February 28, 2023
On March 16, 2023, the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Clough Funds Trust (the “Trust”), based upon the recommendation of Clough Capital Partners L.P. (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to the Clough Global Long/Short Fund (the “Fund”), a series of the Trust, approved a Plan of Liquidation for the Fund (the “Plan”). Effective as of the close of business on March 20, 2023, the Fund will cease selling shares and the Adviser will begin the process of liquidating the Fund’s investments under the terms of the Plan. The Adviser anticipates that the assets of the Fund will be fully liquidated and all outstanding shares redeemed on or about April 24, 2023 (the “Liquidation Date”).
Pursuant to the Plan, the Fund will liquidate its investments and thereafter redeem all of its outstanding shares by distribution of its assets to shareholders in amounts equal to the net asset value of each shareholder’s Fund investment after the Fund has paid or provided for all of its charges, taxes, expenses and liabilities. Although the Fund will be closed to new purchases, you may continue to redeem your shares, including reinvested distributions, as provided in the section of the Prospectus entitled “Buying and Redeeming Shares.” The Liquidation date may be changed without notice to shareholders, as the liquidation of the Fund’s assets or winding up of the Fund’s affairs may take longer than expected. Any shareholders who have not redeemed their shares of the Fund prior to the Liquidation Date will have their shares redeemed automatically as of the close of business on the Liquidation Date.
As a result of the anticipated liquidation of the Fund, the Fund is expected to deviate from its stated investment strategies and policies and will no longer pursue its stated investment objective. The Fund will begin liquidating its portfolio and will hold cash and cash equivalents, such as money market funds, until all investments have been converted to cash and all shares have been redeemed. During this period, your investment in the Fund may not experience the gains (or losses) that would be typical if the Fund were still pursuing its investment objective.
As is the case with any redemption of fund shares, these liquidation proceeds will generally be subject to federal and, as applicable, state and local income taxes if the redeemed shares are held in a taxable account and the liquidation proceeds exceed your adjusted basis in the shares redeemed. If the redeemed shares are held in a qualified retirement account such as an IRA, the liquidation proceeds may not be subject to current income taxation under certain conditions. You should consult with your tax adviser for further information regarding the federal, state and/or local income tax consequences of this liquidation that are relevant to your specific situation.
All expenses incurred in connection with the transactions contemplated by the Plan, other than the brokerage commissions associated with the sale of portfolio securities, will be paid by the Adviser.
Please retain this supplement with your Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and
Statement of Additional Information.

@Crash. In 2008 I was busy running a business and I was ten years from retirement. I didn’t have all day to follow the markets every move and digest a hundred other dudes fears. The future of democracy wasn’t in question and the crazy caucus wasn’t threatening default. And I don’t remember members of Congress calling for a civil war. But if the worst happened I had a decade for the market the climb back and short of that,,,, to save more money. Of course things look extra volatile now. If we live long enough, this too shall pass. Best regards to you Crash.

FYI per The NYT:
"If a brokerage firm is in financial trouble, an entity called the Securities Investor Protection Corporation, known as SIPC, serves as a backstop. It’s a nonprofit corporation that was created under the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970.
SIPC generally covers up to $500,000 of securities and cash (including a $250,000 limit for the cash component) for each customer, though that can be higher for people with multiple accounts — depending on the account types and whether they’re individual accounts or jointly held.
A traditional individual retirement account, a Roth I.R.A. and an individual brokerage account, for example, would each qualify for a $500,000 limit at the same firm. The same goes for a separate joint account or a trust account.
But if you had two individual brokerage accounts at the same firm, for instance, you would receive only up to $500,000 in protection for both. A married couple with a joint brokerage account — as well as two individual brokerage accounts at the same firm — would receive an additional $500,000 in coverage for the joint account."

Question: In light of the recent bank failures in California, is or has anybody been breaking up their accounts at different brokerages to meet the SIPC's $500,000 coverage limit? Is anybody concerned in view of Schwab's recent market performance?
Just curious, since I never considered the possibility of a major national brokerage firm going bankrupt.
Fred

If you are covered by an employer plan, then income limits apply for full or partial deductibility of T-IRA contributions. There are no income limits for nondeductible T-IRA contribution (and that is why Backdoor Roth work).
Higher income limits apply to R-IRAs but those aren't deductible.
https://www.fidelity.com/retirement-ira/contribution-limits-deadlines

@sma3, tax the rich sounds better to me than paying a 30% sales tax with our retirement money.

I suggest that @msf follow up on this with M* or @ApplebyIRA at Twitter.
I'm rather antisocial (media) - no Facebook, Twitter, etc. accounts. And M* keeps making it harder to communicate with. Instead I'll try D. Appleby's website targeted at individuals, and relay what response I get.
About the website: https://retirementdictionary.com/about-us/
"The rules that govern IRAs, 401(k)s and other retirement accounts are complex. Need a plain-English explanation? Ask us!"
https://retirementdictionary.com/ask-an-expert/

Thanks for your thoughts. As I move toward mid retirement I find my need for income is less than anticipated but my loss aversion is greater than before. Thus my interest in lower risk investments.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/799295/000172967823000013/prosai-stkr6919_0323.htm
497 1 prosai-stkr6919_0323.htm SUPPLEMENT TO PROSPECTUS AND SAI
March 8, 2023
BNY Mellon Investment Funds I
-BNY Mellon Diversified Emerging Markets Fund
Supplement to Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information
The Board of Trustees of BNY Mellon Investment Funds I (the "Trust") has approved the liquidation of BNY Mellon Diversified Emerging Markets Fund (the "Fund"), a series of the Trust, effective on or about May 12, 2023 (the "Liquidation Date"). Before the Liquidation Date, and at the discretion of Fund management, the Fund's portfolio securities will be sold and shares held of underlying funds will be redeemed, and the Fund may cease to pursue its investment objective and policies. The liquidation of the Fund may result in one or more taxable events for shareholders subject to federal income tax.
Accordingly, effective on or about April 11, 2023 (the "Closing Date"), the Fund will be closed to any investments for new accounts, except that new accounts may be established by participants in group retirement plans if the Fund is established as an investment option under the plans before the Closing Date. The Fund will continue to accept subsequent investments until the Liquidation Date, except that subsequent investments made by check or pursuant to TeleTransfer or Automatic Asset Builder no longer will be accepted after May 2, 2023. However, subsequent investments by Individual Retirement Accounts and retirement plans sponsored by BNY Mellon Investment Adviser, Inc. or its affiliates (together, "BNYM Adviser Retirement Plans") pursuant to TeleTransfer or Automatic Asset Builder (but not by check) will be accepted after May 2, 2023.
Effective on the Closing Date, the front-end sales load applicable to purchases of the Fund's Class A shares will be waived on investments made in the Fund's Class A shares. In addition, as of that date, the contingent deferred sales charge ("CDSC") applicable to redemptions of Class C shares and Class A shares of the Fund will be waived on any redemption of such Fund shares.
To the extent subsequent investments are made in the Fund on or after the Closing Date, the Fund's distributor will not compensate financial institutions (which may include banks, securities dealers and other industry professionals) for selling Class C shares or Class A shares subject to a CDSC at the time of purchase.
Fund shares held on the Liquidation Date in BNYM Adviser Retirement Plans will be exchanged for Wealth shares of Dreyfus Government Cash Management ("DGCM"). Investors may obtain a copy of the Prospectus of DGCM by calling 1-800-373-9387.
6919STK0323

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1591556/000159155623000015/stk62530323.htm
497 1 stk62530323.htm SUPPLEMENT TO PROSPECTUS AND SAI
March 8, 2023
BNY Mellon Investment Funds II, Inc.
- BNY Mellon Alternative Diversifier Strategies Fund
Supplement to Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information
The Board of Directors of BNY Mellon Investment Funds II, Inc. (the "Company") has approved the liquidation of BNY Mellon Alternative Diversifier Strategies Fund (the "Fund"), a series of the Company, effective on or about May 12, 2023 (the "Liquidation Date"). Before the Liquidation Date, and at the discretion of Fund management, the Fund's portfolio securities will be sold and shares held of underlying funds will be redeemed, and the Fund may cease to pursue its investment objective and policies. The liquidation of the Fund may result in one or more taxable events for shareholders subject to federal income tax.
Accordingly, effective on or about April 11, 2023 (the "Closing Date"), the Fund will be closed to any investments for new accounts, except that new accounts may be established by participants in group retirement plans if the Fund is established as an investment option under the plans before the Closing Date. The Fund will continue to accept subsequent investments until the Liquidation Date, except that subsequent investments made by check or pursuant to TeleTransfer or Automatic Asset Builder no longer will be accepted after May 2, 2023. However, subsequent investments by Individual Retirement Accounts and retirement plans sponsored by BNY Mellon Investment Adviser, Inc. or its affiliates (together, "BNYM Adviser Retirement Plans") pursuant to TeleTransfer or Automatic Asset Builder (but not by check) will be accepted after May 2, 2023.
Effective on the Closing Date, the front-end sales load applicable to purchases of the Fund's Class A shares will be waived on investments made in the Fund's Class A shares. In addition, as of that date, the contingent deferred sales charge ("CDSC") applicable to redemptions of Class C shares and Class A shares of the Fund will be waived on any redemption of such Fund shares.
To the extent subsequent investments are made in the Fund on or after the Closing Date, the Fund's distributor will not compensate financial institutions (which may include banks, securities dealers and other industry professionals) for selling Class C shares or Class A shares subject to a CDSC at the time of purchase.
Fund shares held on the Liquidation Date in BNYM Adviser Retirement Plans will be exchanged for Wealth shares of Dreyfus Government Cash Management ("DGCM"). Investors may obtain a copy of the Prospectus of DGCM by calling 1-800-373-9387.
6253STK0323

Being able to do a partial transfer/rollover of an account with 72(t) distribtutions is nice, but it begs the question why would one want to do that? The usual advice, especially with respect to (employer-sponsored) retirement plans is to do full rollovers.
Jeffrey Levine (Kitches.com) has a nice discussion of many of the SECURE 2.0 Act provisions. He offers a good example of why one might want to do a partial transfer. In short, because there might be an investment opportunity that would lock up the money (e.g. CD). To take advantage of that opportunity while still being able to make the requisite distributions, one retains some of the money in the original account for withdrawals. See Example #5.
https://www.kitces.com/blog/secure-act-2-omnibus-2022-hr-2954-rmd-75-529-roth-rollover-increase-qcd-student-loan-match/
I am a bit confused by the recommendation on Yogi's page. "IRA owners and plan participants should keep 72(t) account balances segregated from other amounts."
ISTM 72(t) accounts must be segregated. 72(t) withdrawal amounts are based on the entire balance of the account being used. And you're not allowed to add money to the account once the withdrawals commence. That appears to originate with RR 2002-62 Section 2.02(e). So there's no commingling at the start of withdrawals, and no commingling after that.
Thus keeping 72(t) account balances segregated seems to be a requirement, not a recommendation. And this has little to do with SECURE 2.0. Prior to that Act, one could not do a full transfer into an existing IRA with a nonzero balance. 2.0 allows partial transfers, but the restriction appears to remain intact - one cannot do a transfer, partial or full, into an existing IRA.
The only effect that 2.0 seems to have on distributions is that while the total amount of the 72(t) distribution must be based on the combined balances of the split account, one is free to make the exact requisite withdrawal amount from any combination of the 72(t) accounts (that resulted from the split). In this respect, the 72(t) calculation and execution is like an RMD calculation and execution done across multiple accounts.

Interestingly, the Cares Act and the Secure Act 2.0 have withdrawal provisions that were and are worth keeping in mind. With the Cares Act we borrowed and returned retirement money over the three year reporting window.
I believe with the Secure Act 2.0 anyone can (withdraw and return) $1K (over a 3 year reporting period) from your qualified accounts penalty free for a "self certified emergency", $22K if one experiences a federal emergency, and unlimited penalty free withdrawals for a terminally illness (wow).
first-look-at-the-secure-2-0-act